Some Background Relevant to Discussion of the Recent New York Times Story on Wildfires

Steve posted about the NY Times story and when I first read it, I thought it would be a terrific piece to analyze from the sociology and philosophy of science perspective.

For me, with a background in what used to be called “forest biology” i.e., physiology and genetics of forest trees, it is an example of what some call disciplinary encroachment.

Now I want to be perfectly clear about one thing… this table from Google AI makes it sound intentional.  Having observed my field for over 50 years, it’s much more systemic and incremental than that.  I once went hunting for forest economists to answer a practical question and the ones with expertise were mostly retired, replaced with more abstract kinds of researchers (except for Extension, so thank you land grants!)

**************

I first noticed it when I was on a review of the Rocky Mountain Station in the 90’s.  While I was supporting a project on fish genetics (it seems important to know how far they move, right?) the Assistant Director explained to me that organismal biology was basically unnecessary,  and that “systems thinking” would obviate the need for it.  This actually goes back to history of science, with mathematics being scientifically cooler than observations and the somewhat tacky world of organisms and dirt and blood. There’s a reason that “physics envy” is an expression.

Some research. and its definitions and categories, has grown increasingly abstract over time.   For example, take mushroom collecting. You could call it “mushroom collecting” and study who does it and where, and maybe what that means for the relevant economies. Or the impacts, say on a forest in Wisconsin. Or you could call it “non-traditional forest products”. That was a popular category for most of my career. Now it is only a part of “ecosystem goods”- a term which also includes, I suppose, wheat from wheat fields.  Then there are “ecosystem goods and services” which I guess can be studied, but it is hard for me to see any application at that level of abstraction.

******************

In other words, the scientists we hire and fund come with different approaches that can lead to different conclusions.  We can examine the spatial and temporal scales they look at, and more specifically the places and times they look at, the tools they use (often the tools set up the scientific worldview, or does the scientific worldview choose the tools), and the definitions they use or categories.  Then there’s how whether and how they use models.  And how they specifically talk about the uncertainty associated with the findings of the study. That’s why I’m a bit skeptical when folks say “the science” says.. I would ask the above questions..

In most of my scientific career, even people in my own discipline did not agree on many things.  And there is no grand funding or famousness to be found in my field, so being right or wrong does not carry the burden of affecting policy.  So let’s analyze the Times story from this frame.